RUTH. - A virtuous Moabite woman, wife of Booz, grandmother of David (Mt. 3, 3-6), in the time of the Judges (Ruth 1, 1), whose story is the subject of the book bearing her name.
R., a childless widow, does not abandon her mother-in-law Noemi who, having lost her husband (Elimelech) and sons, returns to her native land (ibid. 1). At Bethlehem, in order to support them, R. goes gleaning and earns the esteem of Booz, a relative of Elimelech (ibid. 2). Booz accepts the invitation to
marry R., according to the custom of levirate marriage (ibid. 3). Having obtained the renunciation of a relative who had the prior right, Booz marries R.; from their son Obed will be born Isa, father of David, progenitor of the Messiah (ibid. 4). “The simple and limpid style, the grace of the narrative, the vivid portrayal of characters and customs place R. among the finest models of narrative prose offered by the Old Testament” (A. Vaccati).
The author, who is unknown, intended to give the genealogy of David (Ruth 4, 18-22) and to show the particular action of Providence within it, as well as to preserve the many precious teachings contained in the vivid and gentle narrative. There is no trace whatever of a polemical nature. It was written no earlier than the reign of David (ibid. 1, 1; 4, 7, 18-22), and, very probably, not much later. Indeed, there are many indications in R. of the antiquity and historicity of the narrative. Elimelech (ibid. 1, 2) corresponds to Ilimilhu in the texts of el-'Amârnah and Râs Samrah; the “Ephrathites” (ibid. 1, 2) of Bethlehem demonstrate that the fusion between the inhabitants of Bethlehem and the Judaean clan (Ephrathites) that colonized them had not yet taken place (F.-M. Abel, Géographie de la Palestine, II, Parigi 1938, p. 276). The conception of the territorial god (Ruth 1, 15; 2, 11 sgg.) is characteristic of ancient times: cf. Indc. 3, 20; 11, 24; certainly inexplicable after the exile (cf. R. Tamisier [V. BIBLICA.], p. 312). The formula of the solemn oath (Ruth 1, 17) is in use only in Samuel-Kings. The extension of levirate marriage (ibid. 3-4) corresponds to ancient Hittite and Akkadian customs (cf. Gen. 38; C. H. Gordon, Parallèles nouziens aux lois et coutumes de l'Ancien Testament, in Revue biblique, 42 [1935], p. 37); Deut. 25, 5-10 limits this law to the brother-in-law (R. Tamisier, p. 322 sgg.). One should further note the ancient customs presented in Ruth 4, 1-10, 16 sgg., together with the editorial note (ibid. 4, 7), and the parallels from Nuzi (cf. R. Tamisier, p. 323 sgg.). The fact that David brought his family to safety from Saul’s wrath with the king of Moab (I Sam. 22, 3) suggests that particular relations existed between David and Moab and adds a strong presumption in favor of the historicity of R. Finally, the idyll and its details fit exactly into the period of the Judges (Iudc. 3, 11-30) and into the life of that time (L. Desnoyers, Histoire du peuple hébreu, I, Parigi 1922, pp. 87 sg., 100 sg.).
Some Catholics, while agreeing in the complete defense of the historicity of R., nevertheless date its composition to after the exile (P. Joüon, J. Goetteaberger: because of the Aramaisms; R. Tamisier: because of the theological doctrine, the universality of salvation, and the suffering of the righteous, as in Job). In publishing the R. of P. Joüon (v. BIBLICA), the direction of the P. Istituto Biblico “believes it its duty to state that it considers it much more probable that R. was written before the exile. Indeed, comparison of the language of R., so little removed from the classical Hebrew of its best period (as the author himself admits), entirely favors an early date. (cf. the same judgment of S. R. Driver, Ed. König). The morphological peculiarities noted by the author are genuine archaisms, indications of a remote age. The serene tone of the narrative, the atmosphere of joy spread over this whole idyll, are difficult to reconcile with the painful circumstances through which the small Judaean community had to pass on returning from exile, until the triumph of Neemia’s political efforts. Finally, the vividness and freshness of the account, the abundance of minute details, seem to indicate that the sacred author was not far removed from the events he recounted” (P. Joüon, p. 13; A. Schulz). The ideas mentioned by Tamisier are found in the most ancient Hebrew sources and, with regard to the sufferings of the righteous, also in Babylonian sources; nor do they occupy any special prominence in R.
The various non-Catholic critical opinions, which date R. to after the exile and make it a mere novella (J. Wellhausen) occasioned by I Sam. 22, 3 (!), have no foundation; or a midhrâf (K. Budde) intended to inculcate the application of the law of levirate marriage (Deut. 25, 5-10); or a polemical position against Deut. 23, 4 sg.; or, more commonly (A. Bertholet, H. Gratz, A. Kuenen, W. Nowack), a protest against the Ezran regulations concerning marriages with foreign women (Eid. 9-10; Neh. 13, 23-29). Besides the Aramaisms, these scholars argue from the proper names Noemi, Mahalon, Chelion, which they regarded as symbolic; but nothing is more difficult and more fragile than reliance on etymologies; R., Orpha, Booz, for example, resist every explanation.
The mythological attempts of H. Winckler and H. Gunkel remained isolated: rural cult, the death and return to life of vegetation, respectively of Tammuz-Ištar or of Iside-Osiride; brought together by M. Haller. Likewise the attempt of E. Reuss to explain Efratei as Ephraimites (Iudc. 2, 5; I Sam. 1, 1), attributing to R. the vindication of Judah’s rights over Ephraim! But Efratei certainly here denotes Bethlehem (I Sam. 17, 12; Mc. 5, 1).
In the Hebrew Bible R. stands among the Kethâbhîm (“Writings”); there is no lack of testimonies and indications that its original place was immediately after the book of Judges (the Greek version of the Septuagint, the Vulgate), with which it was sometimes joined (Origene, In Ps. 1: PG 12, 1084; s. Girolamo, Prol. gal.: PL 28, 522 sg.; Melitone di Sardi: PG 20, 396; Giuseppe Flavio, Contra Apion., 1, 8). In all probability, the displacement derives from mèghillôth (v.), in which R. occupies second place: it was read at Pentecost because of the vivid description of the barley harvest (Ruth 2-3). The Masoretic text is mediocre; the Septuagint version literal; the Vulgate elegant but very free.